Метафоризация судебного заседания в терминах войны в американском и канадском национальных вариантах судебного дискурса. Сравнительный анализ

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.