Legal Metaphors Across Languages and Cultures (LeMALC)

Series Convenors

Professor Hanem El-Farahaty, School of Languages, Cultures and Societies, University of Leeds

Dr Francesca Seracini, Faculty of Linguistic Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan (Italy)

Professor Łucja Biel, Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw (Poland)

Project Co-ordinator

Aiman Al Owaisi, University of Leeds

Overview

The project brings together an international and interdisciplinary network of scholars and legal professionals with the purpose of comparing, combining and integrating approaches in the study of legal metaphors. The project specifically focuses on metaphors related to the theme of human rights, taking into consideration texts of different degrees of specialisation, produced for different audiences and purposes (e.g. legislation, institutional communication, social media)

The following key research question guides the project: How are value systems, world-views and regulations reflected, constructed and communicated through metaphors in legal discourse from a cross-cultural, multilingual and multidisciplinary perspective?

The pursuit of this overarching question requires investigation into three topics.

Methods for metaphor identification

Recent developments in Natural Language Processing have called attention to the importance of metaphor detection for applications such as machine translation and sentiment analysis. However, the methodological approaches to metaphor identification are still fragmented and tend to vary between disciplines. The network will explore existing practices and assess the validity of novel, technology-assisted methods for the identification of the metaphors conceptualizing the themes of human rights. Ultimately, the aim is to propose a technology-assisted and corpus-based methodological framework for the study of metaphors in legal discourse that can be applied across different languages, cultures, legal systems and genres.

Universality of rights expressed through metaphors

While recent research points to the idea that there is no universal foundation for rights conceptualized through metaphors (Mannoni 2022), studies into this key theme are still limited and restricted to few languages and cultures. Within the context of the networking series, the coordinated research of the multilingual network will enable knowledge to advance, taking different languages and legal genres into consideration in a comparative perspective. Potential pitfalls, such as stereotypes and wrong generalisations, that could hinder effective cross-cultural communication will also emerge from the research.

Translation of metaphors for human rights in legal texts

The seminars will enable a discussion between professional translators, lawyers, translation studies scholars and computational linguistics scholars that involves different language pairs and text-types. The aim is to consider challenges and identify strategies that can minimize the problems posed by the translation of metaphors for human rights in legal texts. The increasing use of machine translation technologies to translate legal documents has put an emphasis on the need for further research in this area, which will be specifically addressed in the seminars.

Our research aims to directly address the needs of professional legal translators navigating metaphors. By bridging the gap between theory and practice, we ensure that our findings are not only insightful but also practical and actionable in real-world translation scenarios.

Have thoughts or experiences with metaphors in legal texts? We'd love to hear from you! Please contact Professor Hanem El-Farahaty via [email protected]

Seminar 1: Legal Metaphors and Human Rights (10 December 2024)

1. Human Rights through Metaphor: Comparative Perspectives on “Personal Liberty” in Constitutions

Presenters: Dr Francesca L. Seracini (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore), Prof Hanem El-Farahaty (University of Leeds), Prof Łucja Biel (University of Warsaw)

This presentation explored how metaphors shape the conceptualization and translation of "personal liberty" across four constitutions: Ireland, Italy, Egypt, and Poland. Using Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), the study revealed that constitutions encode liberty through culturally embedded metaphors—such as liberty as an untouchable possession, a sacred space, or a bounded entity.

Key findings included: (i) Ireland and Italy frame liberty as a protected, almost sacred personal space; (ii) Egypt views liberty as a “natural right” akin to an innate human possession or garment; (iii) Poland presents liberty through metaphors of “personal untouchability” and “freedom as possession,” though shifts in English translations obscure these nuances.

The presenters demonstrated that metaphor translation can alter legal meaning, revealing conceptual divergence across languages and systems. The study also touched on AI translation tools, noting their potential for efficiency but cautioning against loss of cultural and legal nuance. Overall, the presentation highlighted the importance of metaphor in constitutional language and the need for culturally sensitive translation in comparative legal studies.

2. Identifying Metaphor in Legal Discourse: Focusing on the Target Domain Words

Prof. Inesa Šeškauskienė, Vilnius University

In this presentation, Prof Šeškauskienė examined methodological challenges in identifying metaphors in legal texts, particularly within opinions of Advocates General at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), including both its foundational (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and later elaborations (Pragglejaz Group, 2007; Steen et al., 2010), she emphasized a target-domain-oriented approach to metaphor identification.

Her method involved extracting key terms using AntConc software and manually identifying metaphorical patterns—based on co-occurring contextual partners—in an Excel framework. She contrasted this with source-domain-driven approaches (e.g. Deignan, 2005), arguing that focusing on target domain words (such as rights) can more effectively capture legal metaphors in specialized discourse.

Using human rights texts as an illustrative case, she discussed the strengths and limitations of this method, noting its potential for improved precision in identifying metaphors relevant to legal reasoning and argumentation.

Key Discussions and Concluding Remarks by Project Leaders:

This seminar highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and practical insights for advancing the field of legal translation. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:

Innovating identification methods: We explored different methods for identifying metaphors, sharing views and experimental findings. This underscored the importance of refining and developing new, more effective approaches for metaphor identification in legal contexts.

Challenges with meaning over time: The principle of basic meaning - and especially historically older meanings - poses challenges. Many metaphors are no longer perceived as such because their metaphorical roots have faded over time. Distinguishing between metaphors that are still perceived versus those that are not will be key to understanding how metaphorical meaning evolves - and how we can handle it effectively in translation.

Focus on target texts too: Identifying metaphors in source texts is just the start. It’s equally important to explore how these metaphors are translated, ensuring their impact, tone, and persuasive power are maintained across languages and cultures. This ensures the original message stays strong in its translated form.

Where metaphors matter most: Legal texts such as opinions, media texts, and court proceedings are rich in metaphors, as they do more than decorate language - they drive arguments and convey nuanced meaning. Our project will examine how metaphors function in these contexts and explore how their persuasive power changes in translation.

Seminar 2: Legal Metaphors and Human Rights (3 April 2025)

1. Metaphors in Chinese Law: Taking a Step Back

Dr Michele Mannoni (University of Verona)

Dr Mannoni discussed the limitations of existing metaphor identification procedures (MIPVU) when applied to Mandarin Chinese, proposing that analysis shift from the word level to the character level due to Chinese linguistic characteristics. He introduced "graphemic metaphors," embedded within the character script, advocating for a culturally and linguistically sensitive adaptation of conceptual metaphor theory.

2. The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law: Questioning Hegemonies

1. Dr. Erika Arban, Senior Research Associate (Hon.), Melbourne Law School (Australia)
2. Prof. Maartje De Visser, Professor of Law, Singapore Management University (Singapore)
3. Dr. Jeong-In Yun, Research Professor, Legal Research Institute and Party Law Research Centre, Korea University (South Korea)

This presentation addressed the linguistic challenges in comparative constitutional law, highlighting how reliance on English as a lingua franca contributes to epistemic biases and methodological issues. The speakers emphasized the risk of excluding non-English speaking perspectives and traditions from mainstream scholarship. They advocated for multilingual scholarship, translation of essential works into various languages, inclusive citation practices, and active engagement with minority and indigenous languages. The presentation also critically discussed artificial intelligence, noting its potential benefits in broadening access to information while cautioning against its possible role in perpetuating epistemic and linguistic injustices. The speakers underscored that a decolonizing approach to language in law, particularly comparative constitutional law, would significantly benefit both non-English-speaking regions and the broader global scholarly community.

3. Mapping Justice: Spatial Metaphors in Supranational Human Rights Discourse

Dr Jekaterina Nikitina (University of Milan)

Dr. Nikitina explored spatial metaphors used in supranational human rights discourse. She emphasized how metaphors, though abstract and sometimes ambiguous, offer powerful means to conceptualize complex human rights principles. Dr. Nikitina discussed the potential of metaphors to generate new legal meanings and enhance understanding of abstract rights, highlighting the careful balance needed between precision and the inherent creativity in metaphorical language.

Key Discussions and Concluding Remarks by Project Leaders:

Participants discussed distinctions between linguistic and specifically legal metaphors, urging empirical research to refine definitions clearly. The seminar emphasized linguistic inclusivity and recognized marginalized legal traditions, advocating cultural sensitivity and multilingualism within academic practice.

Project leaders thanked attendees for their insightful contributions, highlighting the significance of the diverse methodological and theoretical perspectives presented. They stressed the necessity of moving beyond dominant linguistic and cultural paradigms to foster a richer, more inclusive understanding of legal metaphors and their implications in human rights discourse.

Seminar 3: Legal Metaphors and Human Rights (26 June 2025)

1. How Are Metaphors Rendered in Legal Translation?

 Dr Petar Božović (University of Montenegro)

Dr Petar Božović presented research on the translation of metaphors in European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, based on a bilingual corpus of 120 rulings (English and Montenegrin). He emphasized that metaphors in legal discourse are not merely rhetorical but play a jurisgenerative role, shaping legal reasoning and meaning.

His findings showed that most legal metaphors are transcultural and lexicalized, making them easier to preserve in translation. Monocultural metaphors, though less frequent, required more interpretive strategies. He concluded that metaphor translation in legal texts is generally stable but should be further examined across different genres and language pairs.

2. Human Rights Metaphors in ICJ Proceedings: Discursive and Translational Dimensions

Dr Neveen El Saed & Dr Doaa Embabi

This presentation analysed the metaphorical framing of human rights in the ICJ proceedings initiated by South Africa against Israel. The speakers focused on how metaphors—such as “human rights as struggle” or “conflict”—function as persuasive tools embedded with ideological meaning. These metaphors were shown to construct social realities, frame political arguments, and reflect power asymmetries, particularly between South Africa, Israel, and the Palestinians (whose voices were largely represented rather than directly heard).

The second half of the presentation examined an unofficial Arabic translation of the ICJ application published by a Jordanian media outlet. Although the translation was literal and likely machine-assisted, the speakers argued that it played a critical role in extending access to legal discourse. Even standardized metaphors, when translated, contributed to the visualization and abstract legal concepts, reinforcing the document’s persuasive impact among Arabic-speaking audiences. The presenters concluded by highlighting the importance of agency—both in legal speech and in the translation process—as a form of political and discursive power.

3. The Language of Rights in Arab Constitutional Texts

Prof Neil Ketchley (University of Oxford)

Prof Neil Ketchley presented a data-driven, exploratory study of how the concept of rights appears in Arabic constitutional texts, drawing on a new corpus of over 290 constitutions from 25 states (1857–2022). His analysis, co-authored with colleagues at Oxford, highlights how the invocation and meaning of rights are shaped by regime type and historical context.

Ketchley showed that republics are significantly more likely than monarchies to include rights-based language, and that these mentions differ semantically: monarchies tend to associate rights with status and hierarchy, while republics link them to citizenship, freedom, and economic liberation. Over time, especially in republics, there is a notable shift from economic to political rights, reflecting broader political-economic transformations from postcolonial developmentalism to neoliberal reforms.

Using tools such as OCR, topic modelling, word embeddings, and change-point analysis, he traced how rights discourse spikes during postcolonial state-building and again around the 2011 Arab uprisings. He interpreted this pattern as part of a "rights-washing" dynamic: regimes increasingly adopt symbolic rights language without substantive commitments, as a means to demobilize dissent and maintain legitimacy.

4. Translation-Related Semantic and Conceptual Transformations of Metaphors in ECtHR Judgments

 Dr Natalia Paviluk (University of Leeds)

Dr Natalia Paviluk examined how metaphors in ECtHR judgments are translated into Ukrainian, German, and Italian, and how these translations reshape legal concepts related to human rights.

She distinguished between novel metaphors, found in narrative sections, and conventional metaphors, common in legal reasoning. While English tends to personify rights (e.g., “protect,” “violate”), other languages use metaphors of substance, entity, and containment, resulting in only partial conceptual alignment.

Based on a corpus of 30 judgments, Dr Paviluk identified three translation strategies: metaphor-to-metaphor, descriptive paraphrase, and omission, each influenced by linguistic norms and metaphor type. Her findings show that translation can significantly alter the meaning and reception of human rights concepts, highlighting the importance of metaphor sensitivity in legal translation.

5. Translation Strategies and Theoretical Models in Metaphor Research

 Dr Sui He (University College London)

Dr Sui He presented a comprehensive review of metaphor translation research, drawing from both her doctoral work and recent monograph, Metaphor Translation in Popular Science: From Minds to Languages. Her talk focused on the intersection of metaphor studies and translation studies, and in particular, how conceptual metaphor theory and blending theory can be integrated to better capture both the cognitive and linguistic dimensions of metaphor translation.

She outlined the evolution of metaphor translation theory, starting from Peter Newmark’s prescriptive categorization of metaphor types and procedures, to Gideon Toury’s descriptive model that recognized translator agency and systemic patterns. Emphasizing the shift toward empirical, corpus-based approaches, she explained how contemporary studies now prioritize scientific, replicable coding practices—such as the MIPVU procedure—across multiple languages.

Dr He’s own research aligns conceptual metaphor theory with blending theory to offer a dual-level analysis (conceptual and linguistic) of metaphor translation. She has applied this model to popular cosmological articles from Scientific American and their Chinese translations, demonstrating how metaphors are either retained, modified, omitted, or newly introduced in translation, depending on both discourse context and language norms.

She highlighted that metaphor research has increasingly diversified, encompassing product-oriented corpus analysis, cognitive translation studies (e.g. eye-tracking, keystroke analysis), and multimodal analysis (e.g. visual metaphors in comics and film). She also discussed metaphor as a concept in itself, noting how translation is often imagined metaphorically (e.g. as a "bridge" or "channel").

In a brief analysis of UN human rights communications, Dr He demonstrated how institutional language often employs standard metaphors—such as “Human rights protection is war” (e.g. “fight for rights”)—which are typically preserved across translations. For example, a metaphor such as “fight” was shown to be retained in both English and Chinese, illustrating minimal interpretive challenge but reinforcing conventional metaphor use in global discourses.

The presentation concluded with Dr He’s proposal for a revised typology of metaphor translation strategies—anchored in cognitive-linguistic theory—to support broader, multilingual corpus research and future applications in AI-assisted translation.

6. Literal Translation of Lexical Metaphors in Legal Discourse

Mr Sherif Okasha (UN Arabic Translation Unit, New York)

Mr Sherif Okasha argued that literal translation, when properly defined, is an effective strategy for rendering lexical metaphors in legal texts, particularly in the multilingual context of United Nations documentation. He distinguished between functional and dysfunctional literal translations, proposing that the key to understanding both lies in polysemy, the presence of both concrete and metaphorical senses in a single lexical item.

Using examples from UN texts such as “shopping for nationality”, he demonstrated how a literal rendering like التسوق من أجل الجنسية  retains the metaphorical structure and expressive force of the original, whereas non-literal substitutions (e.g. شراء) weaken the conceptual meaning. He categorized literal translations into functional, semi-functional, and dysfunctional, depending on whether the metaphorical extension in the source language is shared and understood in the target language.

The discussion was supported by comparative translations of metaphoric terms such as vendor, procurement, and deployment across Arabic, French, and Spanish, highlighting how metaphoric compatibility between languages determines the success of literal translation. Mr Okasha concluded that literal translation should not be dismissed, as it can preserve both semantic precision and discursive impact when metaphors are culturally and cognitively aligned.

7. Translating Metaphor in Legal and Non-Legal Quranic Verses

Prof. Rafat Y. Alwazna and Dr Abeer Alfaify: King Abdulaziz University, KSA

This presentation explored the challenges and strategies involved in translating metaphors from the Quran, focusing on both legal and non-legal verses. Using a corpus-based approach and drawing on the Quranic Arabic Corpus, the study compared how seven different translators rendered explicit and implicit metaphors from Arabic into English.

The research applied Newmark’s (1988) typology of metaphor translation procedures, examining whether translators used literal, sense-for-sense, or combined approaches. The study highlighted the complexity of preserving metaphorical meaning due to the Quran's unique linguistic, rhetorical, and cultural characteristics, which often result in translation loss, particularly for metaphors.

Key findings showed that most translators tended to reduce metaphors to their sense, often at the expense of the original imagery and personification. The researchers recommended that the most effective approach is a combination of literal and sense-for-sense translation, preserving both the metaphorical image and its underlying meaning to make the translation accessible to a wide audience.

The presentation concluded by calling for further research, particularly on underexplored types of metaphors and the comparison between human and AI-assisted translations. This work sheds light on the importance of metaphor in religious texts and the critical need for careful, nuanced translation strategies.

Concluding Remarks – Seminar 3

The final seminar of the Legal Metaphors Across Languages and Cultures (LeMALC) series closed with warm thanks and reflections from project leads, Professors Hanem El-Farahaty and Francesca Seracini, who acknowledged the diverse, insightful contributions of all presenters. They praised the collaborative spirit of the day and the critical engagement shown by speakers and participants alike.

Dr Seracini highlighted several overarching themes that emerged across the presentations. She noted the significance of broadening metaphor studies beyond English, as exemplified by Dr Božović’s contribution on Montenegrin legal texts. She also emphasised the need to investigate not just the translation, but the reception of legal metaphors, and commended the emphasis on metaphors as persuasive tools and vehicles of ideology. Several presentations, such as those on the ICJ proceedings and UN documents, demonstrated how metaphors construct legal and political realities.

Professor El-Farahaty echoed these points, drawing attention to the challenges of distinguishing between live and dead metaphors, as well as the value of integrating critical discourse analysis into metaphor research. She stressed that legal metaphors are not only conceptual devices but also carry deep cultural, political, and emotional resonance. This was particularly evident in discussions around metaphors in politically charged contexts, such as human rights litigation involving Palestine and Israel.

Both Dr Seracini and Prof El-farahaty noted the importance of expanding metaphor research beyond text-based analysis to include audience perception, as well as incorporating multimodal perspectives. Dr Sui He's contribution was praised for proposing a more structured, multilingual, and replicable approach to metaphor translation research, aligning metaphor theory with translation studies in a way that enables broader comparative work.

Dr Natalia Paviluk’s nuanced analysis of ECtHR judgments highlighted the semantic and conceptual transformations of legal metaphors across languages. Meanwhile, Prof Neil Ketchley’s diachronic study of rights discourse in Arab constitutional texts was praised for its interdisciplinary and data-driven insights, showcasing the role of isomorphism and “rights-washing” in shaping the language of law across regime types.

Mr Sherif Okasha’s presentation offered a rare practitioner’s perspective from within the United Nations, showcasing how literal metaphor translation, when culturally and cognitively aligned, can be both functional and impactful.