12 A study of metaphors in fiction in general and in legal fiction in particular may be useful in testing this hypothesis. 14Metaphors, however, do not only carry understandable virtues. First, they can be a subtle way to manipulate people. Gingras [1996:160] states that they can be considered «sophistry,» that is, discursive instruments aimed at persuasion. In this context, I will discuss the consequences of certain ontological metaphors, particularly those of personification. Another argument that diminishes its pedagogical power is that each metaphor involves different levels of interpretation: the choice of D1 must be deciphered to see what the metaphor is supposed to offer, i.e. which aspects of D2 are highlighted. But capturing light isn`t always so obvious. Although D1 is supposed to be known, this does not mean that it is easy to interpret in all metaphors. What they are supposed to point out is not always obvious.

If the recipient does not have the necessary knowledge, some of them remain in the dark and a number leave the reader lost. It should be added that the majority of metaphors in legal language are «used» or «dead» metaphors – as is usually the case in jargon – which is an oxymoron for some authors, since these so-called metaphors generally go unnoticed because they belong to the legal lexicon3 – as opposed to «living» or «living» metaphors. As such, they may have a specific entry in a dictionary. In other words, they are lexicalized. Why does it work against them, which can make it difficult to understand them? Because the context in which they are used is often less meaningful than that of «living» metaphors, they can be more difficult. Does that prevent them from being used in legal language? Not necessarily, as I will say later. Nevertheless, there is one characteristic that clearly defers them: some of them are misleading, either because they are ambiguous or because they impose a worldview that falsely excludes any other interpretation (I will discuss the female personification of the common law in this regard). I must clarify that in this article I will not consider these metaphors that create so much incoherence that the message is incomprehensible at the end (due to an accumulation of metaphors that generate, for example, a series of unrelated images). 60Second, literal language expresses complex concepts no less complex than metaphors. Quite the opposite. As Morra, Rossi & Bazzanella put it: 61The word «obscurity» in the title is worth discussing.

The question is: to whom do such metaphors obscure? Undoubtedly, for anyone who does not have the necessary legal and/or cultural knowledge. In fact, «ambiguity is rarely an obstacle to understanding,» Charnock argues [2006:65]. The darkness created by some metaphors is indeed relative. Metaphors use simple words, but they are not simple language. They belong to symbolic language. A language that the average person probably doesn`t always understand, or isn`t even supposed to understand. For example, the metaphor of «clean hands» or the metaphor of the «silver plate doctrine» refer to very specific concepts that are only supposed to be mastered by lawyers. As such formulations, they not only do not impair understanding, but also offer the added benefit of being not only «memorable, but memorable» (Mellinkoff, 1963: 440).

The law in the general sense is a set of rules of action or conduct prescribed by the supervisory authority and having the force of law. What must be followed and followed by citizens who are subject to sanctions or legal consequences. [Black`s Law Dictionary, 1991:612]. 15 Do legal metaphors clarify, distort or blur the message? I will first show how metaphors are inherent in legal English and form a typical part of the legal style. However, they are more common in some types of legal texts than in others. I have not found many of them in contracts, and they also seem to be rare in legal texts. But when they emerge, they play a crucial role, as Morra, Rossi & Bazzanella [2006:148] point out. Conversely, they are used quite frequently in judgments. Berger makes a very interesting point in this regard when he says: 55In fact, in addition to this metaphor of the «goddess», the author also frequently uses metaphors of war: «She faced many enemies and different types of weapons,» he says [1912: 7]. «We must take into account the enemies of the law and legal order of modern times,» he adds [1912:28]. «She is looking for faithful servants to help her when she needs it. It uses intrepid and independent judges from a fearless and independent bar […].

If Our Lady`s servants are not of this spirit, all the knowledge of all her books will not save them from shame or her kingdom from destruction. If they are, we will never see the enemy with whom they will be afraid to speak at the door,» he says, as if to drive the nail [1912:34]. The table of contents leaves no doubt about the warlike and divine aspects of English common law in Sir Pollock`s eyes at the time: «Our Lady and Her Knights», «The Giants and The Gods», «Surrebutter Castle», «Enemies in the Gate», «Rescue and Ransom», «Alliance and Conquest», «Perils of the Market-Place» and «The Perpetual Quest». Some authors such as Legrand [1992b:945] have pointed out that the feminine metaphor is primarily intended to show English lawyers` respect for the law. This view is supported by the use of the word «servant» and by the fact that Sir Pollock stated in his speech that «Our Lady of the Common Law» deserves to be honoured and revered. 12Unsurprisingly, the use of body references is also common in legal French. In this regard, Houbert [2008:1] shows how the expression «the eye of the law» evokes the maxim the eye of the law watches and how «the mouth of the law» evokes the famous quote from Montesquieu the judge is the mouth of the law. However, it should be clarified that culture-related metaphors, similar metaphors found in two different languages, are not necessarily interpreted in the same way.

A large number of legal concepts are expressed through metaphors that illustrate Lakoff & Johnson`s theory of conceptual metaphor. In fact, the law often uses metaphors to enable us to understand an abstract and/or unknown concept in relation to another that is concrete and/or familiar (the «living tree» metaphor used to describe certain aspects of the Canadian Constitution is a good example). The law itself is often compared to an object («breaking the law», «an offender») or a person («Our Lady of the Common Law», «the arm of the law», «the eye of the law»). In addition, some metaphors would have contributed to the development of new legal concepts (for example, the «golden thread» metaphor was used to evoke the then new notion of the presumption of innocence in Canada). While it is undeniable that metaphors are useful in illuminating legal concepts, the interpretation of the latter is necessarily biased, since the comparative concept is always limited to the comparative concept, which, moreover, tends to present interpretation as the only possible one. In this way, certain metaphors can be used as tools of manipulation. Finally, the cognitive function of metaphors may be limited: on the one hand, some metaphors may remain opaque even to the native speaker («Blue Sky Law», «Thin Skull Doctrine»), on the other hand, others may be misleading, either because they are ambiguous or because they suggest (impose?) a worldview that excludes all others. 43A metaphor can only convey a point of view imposed by the source area.

This is not specific to the interpretation of metaphors in law. This is typical of the interpretation of each metaphor in any context. The Free Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/, Web. 3 September 2012. 8In this respect, it is not a mere stylistic effect or linguistic decoration. In some cases, metaphors may even have meaning that no other sentence would convey as effectively. It is not surprising that legal discourse is full of metaphors, because law relies heavily on concepts. Indeed, given the analogous process on which it is based, the metaphor is, in Berger`s words: 57Is the metaphor really misleading? Yes, to the extent that it represents something that is not supported by any historical evidence and closes a debate that is still very much alive.

That`s what metaphors do. They present as an objective fact something that is only an abbreviated truth, in order to achieve a specific goal. We can consider that the objective is achieved if the metaphors have been correctly deciphered. However, this is far from always the case. Some of them are difficult to decipher and are therefore likely to completely blur the message. Or is it the case? 39This metaphor is so powerful that it is still used today. In his speech, Lord Justice Laws [2012: 5§9] highlights the evolving nature of the common law by saying that some precedents «thrive like the green laurel» – an evergreen tree commonly used as a symbol of prosperity.