Metaphors in Arbitral Awards: A Corpus-assisted Discourse Analysis across Legal Traditions

Abstract

This article investigates the use of metaphors in arbitral awards, examining how these figurative expressions become embedded in legal reasoning and shape decision-making. Drawing on the pervasive role of metaphors in everyday language (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 3; Semino 2008, 1) and legal discourse (Winter 1989, 1222), the study acknowledges the influence of legal traditions on linguistic choices in arbitration texts (Gotti 2008, 232). It situates its analysis within the broader framework of genre theory, emphasizing the intrinsic link between legal discourse and its institutional and professional contexts (Bhatia, Garzone and Degano 2012, 1; Fairclough and Wodak 1997, 276). Using a corpus-assisted discourse study (CADS) (Partington, Duguid and Taylor. 2013, 10; Goźdź-Roszkowski 2021, 1517), this research employs quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze arbitral awards drafted in English and sourced from the Jus Mundi database. The corpus, covering awards rendered between 2008 and 2023, is divided into two subcorpora reflecting the legal systems governing the arbitration: one consisting of awards governed by the laws of civil law countries (Italy, France, Switzerland) and the other by the laws of common law countries (UK, US, Hong Kong, Singapore). The study identifies key conceptual metaphors and examines how their usage reflects and reinforces the distinct legal cultures of civil law and common law systems. Findings reveal differences in metaphorical framing of legal principles and procedures, highlighting the nuanced interplay between metaphor and legal culture. By exploring how metaphors shape the discourse and interpretation of arbitration procedures, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the intersection between legal language and cultural traditions.