| Keywords [eng] |
metaphor, legal discourse, media discourse, court procedure, news articles, metaphorical patterns, metafora, teisinis diskursas, žiniasklaidos diskursas, teismo procesas, naujienų straipsniai, metaforiniai modeliai |
| Abstract [eng] |
In the present study, a comparative analysis of metaphors found in the transcripts of the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments and news articles covering cases involving Donald Trump is conducted. Based on a complex methodology (see Šeškauskienė 2026), which incorporates several steps from the metaphor identification procedure of Pragglejaz Group (Pragglejaz Group 2007), Lakoff and Johnson’s theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980/2003), and its further development (Kövecses 2010; Urbonaitė 2015), this study examines how the abstract concepts of case, power, right, and law, which are assigned to a target domain, can be perceived through more concrete source domains. The study found that the degree of metaphoricity in the media sub-corpus is significantly higher (55%) than in the legal sub-corpus (30%), and the word most frequently used metaphorically in the analysed sub-corpora is power. The main source domains of metaphors in both discourses are PHYSICAL OBJECT (for example, power can be transferred or restricted) and HUMAN BEING/ANIMAL (for instance, law is a subject that can require or prohibit something). However, there are also differences between the two sub-corpora: in news discourse, the source domain of SPACE (expressions such as above/under the law) is used more frequently than in legal discourse, and SPACE is one of the three dominant source domains. The study showed that metaphors are quite often employed in the news to express a negative attitude or to attract the reader’s attention. For example, a case is referred to as a blockbuster, or the vulnerability of the law is emphasised through verbs such as break, throw, or dispose of. In the context of court proceedings, metaphors more often serve as a means of concretising complex concepts to facilitate their understanding; they are less frequently used to express a particular opinion. |
