Cognitive Linguistics and the Law

  1. Valenzuela Manzanares, Javier 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info
    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad de Murcia
Journal:
Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Lingüística

ISSN: 2014-1408

Year of publication: 2014

Issue: 4

Pages: 185-200

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Lingüística

Abstract

Cognitive Linguistics (CL) believes that the study of language can be informative with regards to human thought processes. If language is built on top of more basic, non-­‐‑linguistic cognitive skills, then some of the mechanisms behind language must surely also be used in other areas of cognition. This means that some of the explanations proposed by CL could help us clarify aspects of human behavior that go well beyond language. The present work is an attempt at looking at a number of mechanisms used in CL to explain language, and see how they shed light on one specific human area: that of our current legal system. The claim is that the processes that constitute our legal systems can be seen from a fresh perspective and can probably be better understood using some of the insights of cognitive linguistics. We will focus preferentially on mechanisms such as categorization processes, the windowing of attention, and framing strategies, including the use of metaphors.

Bibliographic References

  • BAIRD, J.A. and ASTINGTON, J.W. (2004), “The role of mental state understanding in the development of moral cognition and moral action”, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 103: 37-49.
  • BARSALOU, L.W. (1983), “Ad-hoc categories”, Memory and Cognition, 11: 211-227.
  • BARSALOU, L.W. (2008), “Grounded cognition”, Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617-645.
  • BERGER, L. (2004), “What is the Sound of a Corporation Speaking? How the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Can Help Lawyers Shape the Law”, 2 J. ALWD 169.
  • BIZER, G.Y., and PETTY, R.E. (2005), “How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects of valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes”, Political Psychology, 26: 553-568.
  • BROSNAN, S.F., and DE WAAL, F.B.M. (2003), “Monkeys reject unequal pay”, Nature, 425, 297-299.
  • CHIU, S. and CHIANG, W. (2011), “FIGHT Metaphors in Legal Discourse: What Is Unsaid in the Story?”, Language and Linguistics, 12.4: 877-915, 2011.
  • COULSON, S. (2001), Semantic leaps: Frame shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • DE WAAL, F. (2006), Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, Princeton University Press.
  • FAUCONNIER, G. and TURNER, M. (2008), The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities, New York, Basic Books.
  • FAUSEY, C., and BORODITSKY, L. (2010), “Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17 (5), 644-650. Available at: <10.3758/PBR.17.5.644>.
  • FAUSEY, C. and BORODITSKY, L. (2011), “Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review: Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 150-157. Available at: <10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5>.
  • FAUSEY, C., LONG, B., INAMORI, A., and BORODITSKY, L. (2010), “Constructing agency: the role of language”, Frontiers in Psychology. Available at: <10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00162>.
  • FAUSEY, C. M., and MATLOCK, T. (2011), “Can grammar win elections?”, Political Psychology, 32: 563-574.
  • FILIPOVIC, L. (2007), “Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics”, International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 14, 245-267.
  • FILIPOVIC, L. (2013a), “Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions”, International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20 (1), 1-19.
  • FILIPOVIC, L. (2013b), “The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint”, International Journal of Law and Language: Current Legal Issues, 328-343 UEA Repository (Chapter).
  • FILLMORE, CH. (1982), “Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea” (Ed.) (1982), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-138), Seoul, Hanshin.
  • FILLMORE, CH. and B. ATKINS (1992), “Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors”, in Frames, fields and contrasts, A. Lehrer, and E. Kittay (Eds.), (pp. 75-102), Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • GEERAERTS, D. (1989), “Introduction: Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory”, Linguistics 27: 587-612.
  • GITLIN, T. (1980), The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left, Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA & London, U.K., University of California Press.
  • GOFFMAN, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, New York, NY et al., Harper & Row.
  • HAUSER, M. (2006), Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong, New York, Harper Collins.
  • HIBBITS, BERNARD I. (1994), “Making Sense of Metaphors: Visuality, Aurality, and the Reconfiguration of American Legal Discourse”, 16 Cardozo Law Review 245.
  • LABOV, W. (1973), “The boundaries of words and their meanings”, in New Ways of Analysing Variation in English, C.-J.N. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (eds.), Washington, Georgetown University Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. (1987), Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the human mind, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. (1996), “The Metaphor System For Morality”, in Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Goldberg, A. (ed.), Cambridge University Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. (1996), Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. (2004), Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Chelsea Green Publishing.
  • LAKOFF, G. (2008), The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, New York, NY, Penguin Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. (2013), “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf”, Cognitive Semiotics, Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 5-19, ISSN (Online) 2235-2066, ISSN (Print).
  • LAKOFF, G. and JOHNSON, M. (1980), Metaphors we live by, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • LAKOFF, G. and JOHNSON, M. (1999), Philosophy in the flesh, New York, Basic Books.
  • LEE, S. and SCHWARZ, N. (2010), “Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance”, Science, 2010; 328 (5979): 709. Available at: <10.1126/science.1186799>.
  • LIPSHAW, J.M. (2011), “Metaphor, Models, and Meaning in Contract Law” (June 23, 2011), 116 Penn. St. L. Rev. 987 (2012); Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 11-04. Available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1761575> or <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1761575>.
  • LUPYAN, G. (2008a), “The Conceptual Grouping Effect: Categories Matter (and named categories matter more)”, Cognition, 108: 566-577.
  • LUPYAN, G. (2008b), “From Chair To “Chair:” A Representational Shift Account Of Object Labeling Effects On Memory”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137(2): 348-369.
  • MAKELA, T. (2011), “Metaphors and Models in Legal theory”, Les Cahiers de Droit, vol. 52, nos 3-4, septembre-décembre 2011, pp. 397-415.
  • PASCUAL, E. (2006), “Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial”, Text & Talk 26(3): 383-402.
  • ROSCH, E. (1973), “On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories”, in Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, T. E. Moore (ed.), 111-44, New York, Academic Press.
  • ROSCH, E. (1975), “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 192-233.
  • ROSCH, E. (1978), “Principles of categorization”, in Cognition and Categorization, E. Rosch and Lloyd, B.B. (eds.), Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48.
  • SCHNALL, S., BENTON, J. and HARVEY, S. (2008), “With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments”, Psychological Science, 19, 1219-1222
  • TALMY, L. (2000), Toward a cognitive semantics, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press
  • THIBODEAU, P.H. and BORODITSKY, L. (2011), “Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning”, PLoS ONE 6(2): e16782. Available at: <10.1371/ journal.pone.0016782>.
  • THIBODEAU, P.H. and BORODITSKY, L. (2013), “Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning”, PLoS ONE 8(1): e52961. Available at: <http://wwwpsych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/crime-metaphors.pdf>.
  • WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1957), Philosophical Investigations, Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
  • YAO, L. and PASCUAL, E. (In prep.), “Screaming evidence and emotional lawyers: Fictive interaction strategies in Eastern and Western criminal cases”, in E. Pascual and Sandler, S. (eds.)
  • YOUNG, L., CAMPRODON, J.A., HAUSER, M., PASCUAL-LEONE, A., and SAXE, R. (2010) “Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 6753-6758.
  • ZHONG, C. B., and LILJENQUIST, K (2006) “Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing”, Science 313, September 8; 2006; 1451-1452.
Data source: Dialnet