The National And International Within Metaphorical Term-Formation In Anglo-American Jurisprudence

Metaphorical terms in the scope of legal communication

Terminology as an important element of the language of professional interaction reveals the need of professional society for linguistic representation of special information to display the specificity of perceiving objects of the material and ideal worlds, as well as correspondence and relations between them. As far as a legal term is regarded as “a word or phrase denoting a fragment of legal reality that is correlated with the legislative or scientific activities of lawyers” (Maksimenko, 2004, p. 21), a metaphorical legal term is understood as a common word or phrase registered in dictionaries in a special meaning, acting as the name of a law concept and used in official professional communication. In metaphorical terms, due to their semantic transparency and vivid internal form, the structures of special knowledge while understanding and categorizing the professional field are most clearly represented.

There have been some successful attempts to scrutinize the role of metaphorical conceptualization in the process of legal term formation in different languages (Calo, 2016; Gavrilova, 2019; Leskina, 2018; Lykova, 2016; Popova, 2019; Volgina, 2016). According to the literature on the problem, the mechanisms of reinterpretation and metaphorical nomination in the sphere of jurisprudence are often associated with the operation of associative-figurative comparison, which allows to identify internal categorical values, i.e. subjective-semantic context that accompanies the development of knowledge of the surrounding reality. It results in finding analogies between:

• the object and its function, e.g. “ear-witness” (literal translation: свидетель-ухо) − свидетель, подтверждающий лично слышанное; свидетель, лично слышавший, то, о чем он показывает (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 176);

• the object and the impression produced, e.g. “nuisance patent” (literal translation: досаждающий патент) − патент, не представляющий промышленной ценности, но препятствующий возможному патентованию конкурентом (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 345);

• the object and its attribute, e.g. “to take silk” (literal translation: взять шелковую мантию) − стать королевским адвокатом (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 464);

• the two actions, e.g. “the guillotine fell” (literal translation: гильотина упала) − принято решение о времени голосования (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 224);

• the two features, e.g. “hard proof” (literal translation: твердое, крепкое доказательство) − веское доказательство (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 380); etc.

The inspection of conceptual metaphors in the selected legal terms has led to distinguishing between nation-identified and nation-unidentified terminological units in accordance with their linguistic and cultural specificity.

Universal metaphorical terms in Anglo-American legal terminology

Universal legal terminological metaphors are characterized by the similitude of the plane of expression (a body of material resources) in various languages for communicating the plane of content of legal concepts. This observation can be exemplified with the term “prisoner of conscience” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 371), introduced into circulation in the early 1960-ies by the British human rights activist Peter Benenson, and its Russian equivalent “узник совести”; together with the English terminological combination “first-hand testimony” and its Russian counterpart “свидетельские показания из первых рук” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 471), etc.

The same linguistic manifestation of the metaphorical model “making dirty money clean” can be traced in the English “money laundering” and the Russian “отмывание денег” terms that denote “легализацию денег от организованной или иной преступности путем проведения оплаты по обычным каналам” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 313). According to the Online Etymology Dictionary  (2020), the legal term “money laundering” was first recorded in 1961 and became widely used during the American Watergate scandal of 1973.

The generalized, culture-overlapping nature of understanding the legal concept “clean, that is, immaculate, unblemished, spotless” can be observed in the metaphorical terms “clean record” and “чистое досье” (without taking into custody or previous convictions, etc.) (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 397).

Universality of these metaphorical models and of their verbal expression in English and Russian supports the hypothesis about general tendencies of human mind to conceptualize reality and interpenetrating boundaries of professional language worldviews.

Culture-dependent legal metaphorical terms of English-speaking countries

The empirical material of the chosen lexicographic sources has made it possible to arrange nation-specific legal metaphorical terms into the following groupings.

The first variety includes legal metaphors, the plane of expression of which differs in various languages while maintaining a single plane of content. The discrepancy with the content invariant of the term system reflects the national identity of professional language worldviews of the comparable national languages. For example, the English term “to table a bill” (literal translation: спрятать законопроект в стол) and the Russian “положить законопроект в долгий ящик” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 60) objectify the same metaphorical model “to postpone the decision − to remove it from sight” in unalike ways.

The same is spotted in the English-Russian pairs of terms “right of hot pursuit” (literal translation: право горячей погони) − “право преследования по горячим следам” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 418); “to sink a debt” (literal translation: утопить долг) − “погасить долг” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 442) and others. Krasnykh (2003) shares that:

Codes of culture as a phenomenon are universal in nature, peculiar to man as homo sapiens. However, their manifestations, the specific weight of each of them in a particular culture, as well as metaphors in which they are realized, are always nationally determined and conditioned by a certain culture (p. 298).

The second type is represented by the terms in which metaphoricity is exposed only in English, and therefore having a pronounced culture-specific character, e.g. “naked trust” (literal translation: обнаженная доверительная собственность) − пассивная доверительная собственность (заключающаяся лишь в выплате денег или передаче имущества бенефициарию) (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 482−483); “bare boat charter” (literal translation: фрахтование голой лодки) − договор фрахтования судна без экипажа (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 87).

Legal terminological metaphors of this type may not have a material embodiment in the form of corresponding terms in other national language systems. Such cross-lingual lacunae are usually registered in dictionaries in a descriptive way. For example, the term “Rules against perpetuities” (literal translation: Правила против вечных распоряжений) as a nation-specific element of Anglo-American legal culture, that has no counterpart in Russian juridical practice, is represented by an extended definition “Правила о недействительности сделок, устанавливающих вещные права со сроком возникновения более чем через 21 год после смерти лица или лиц, названных в сделке” (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 424).

A niche in the corpus of culture-dependent legal terms is occupied by metaphorical units with onym components, the understanding of which depends largely on the degree of awareness of legal discourse participants about denotations designated by proper names and related non-linguistic factors. The proper name carries information about the historical, philosophical, political, economic, religious and cultural heritage of the society (Kosonogova, 2016, p. 11). It accumulates legal traditions and beliefs that the society has created throughout the history of its development. Oftentimes, toponyms and anthroponyms are engaged in forming terminological metaphors.

A toponymic unit conjures up semantic associations, or connotations, which reflect cultural trends and customs, that prevailed in the community at one time or another and are associated with the proper name. For instance, in order to a understand an authentic metaphor in the English legal term “to enter at Stationers’ Hall” (literal translation: войти в зал компании Stationers) − зарегистрировать авторское право (Великобритания) (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 184), a non-native English speaker should get familiar with the history and geography of the UK. Prior to 1924, individuals and legal entities had to apply for copyright protection at Stationers’ Hall, the home of the Worshipful Company of Stationers.

Another case in point is the legal notion “Gretna-Green marriage”. Similarly, if a specialist, not knowing the meaning of the term, encounters it in professional discourse, he will have to find out extralinguistic information about a quaint village located in the southern part of Scotland, where many English lovers tried to get to after 1753. In Gretna Green men and women entered into marriages according to Scottish law, which did not require, unlike English, compliance with other formalities except the consent of the intending spouses. This explains “wedding runaway” from England to Scotland (Andrianov et al., 2009, p. 302−303).

Toponyms such as “Stationers’ Hall” and “Gretna Green”, which build up terminological units, play an all-important role in the formation of professional language worldview that images the national mentality of British lawyers.

Anthroponyms also actively participate in term-formation processes in the legal lexicon of countries with a case-law system and easily create professional metaphors that indicate core cultural values of their ethnic group, e.g. “McKenzie friend” (literal translation: друг Маккензи) − человек, необязательно имеющий юридическую квалификацию, но наделенный правом помогать истцу в суде, действующем по нормам общего права (Law, 2018, p. 135). This terminological metaphor is derived from the name of the claimant in the case of McKenzie and McKenzie (1971), who, due to financial difficulties and inability to pay for the services of an attorney, involved a friend into his divorce proceedings.

Historical anthroponyms, which are reckoned by Krasnykh (2003) among the category of national-precedent phenomena, after passing into the category of terms, act as a manifestation of the national linguo-cultural component of professional language worldview. Let us illustrate it with the word “Hansard” (Law, 2018, p. 99). This is an official shorthand account of parliamentary debates, named after the Hansard family, whose printing house has been considered the official parliamentary printing house in Great Britain since the 19th century.

The prevalence of proper name-based metaphorical terms is predetermined by the precedential nature of the Anglo-American law system.

Unique legal terminological metaphors in national variants of professional language worldview